21/8/2024–|Last update: 8/21/202404:43 PM (Makkah Time)
Several rounds of negotiations aimed at stopping the Israeli war on Gaza have taken place, without achieving any significant progress so far that would lead to stopping the aggression as a first step, in preparation for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Strip after the exchange of prisoners and the initial agreement on a plan to rebuild what was destroyed by the Israeli military machine.
With the attempts of the mediators, represented by Egypt, Qatar and the United States, to mature an agreement to stop the war, the resistance expresses its discontent with the Israeli procrastination and evasion of the entitlements, which sometimes prompts it to protest with action and not just words, such as when it threatened not to send its negotiating delegation to “Doha” and “Cairo.”
But this does not represent a final position on the entire negotiation process, nor can it be interpreted as meaning that the resistance in Gaza has chosen to continue fighting indefinitely. This is unimaginable and is not justified by the resistance fighters’ confidence in their abilities, nor their indifference to the harsh suffering of the people of Gaza, especially children, women, the elderly, the sick and the displaced. Rather, it is an expression of the resistance leadership’s protest against the Israeli negotiating approach, which shows no sincere intention to reach an agreement that ends the fighting.
The resistance, after a long experience of experimentation and suffering, has come to understand how Israeli politicians think, and how Tel Aviv transforms the negotiation process from a means of searching for a solution to a tool of manipulation or a deceptive trap, through which it wants to achieve several goals at the same time, which are:
Implementing part of the IDF’s “combat doctrine”
It does not deviate from the usual tactic, which has always presented peace as a mere truce between two wars, and sat down to negotiate to exhaust its opponents or take the greatest possible gain from them without war. This is confirmed by the Arab experience in dealing with Israel over three quarters of a century.
buy more time
It allows Netanyahu to arrange his internal cards that are pressuring him, as he is fully aware that stopping the battle in Gaza means immediately starting a political and legal battle that concerns him in Tel Aviv, from which he does not guarantee that he will emerge victorious, and does not even guarantee that he will reduce his losses to the extent that he will remain politically alive, even for a few years to come.
Netanyahu is betting that luring the resistance into negotiations may lead to the slackening of the Palestinian factions’ fighters, when they believe, even for a few days, that the war will end soon.
Using negotiation as an interface
Through this, Israel is trying to beautify its aggressive war face before the peoples of the world, many of whom have become angry about the excessive killing and destruction that has reached the level of “genocide” of the Palestinians in Gaza. Tel Aviv seeks to present itself as a serious party in search of a solution, while in reality it has not abandoned the only solution it believes in now, which is to eradicate the resistance, or destroy it so that it loses its effectiveness completely, and then deprive it of managing the Gaza Strip after the war.
Related Post
At the same time, Netanyahu is using the negotiation card to reduce international pressure on him, especially with the succession of decisions and calls demanding an immediate end to the war, whether by international organizations or on the tongues of officials in several governments around the world. Therefore, politicians in Israel are trying to hold Hamas responsible for obstructing the negotiations, which is a blatant lie proven by the statements of officials in Egypt and Qatar, especially since the two countries are deeply involved in sponsoring these negotiations.
reduce internal impact
Netanyahu uses negotiations as a trump card to minimize the political and social impact of a segment of the Israeli public, including former army generals, retired intelligence officers and families of prisoners, who believe that the war may fail to achieve the goals set by the Israeli army at the outset. They always say that Netanyahu does not want to negotiate, and that even if he agrees to send an Israeli delegation, he is not seeking any current solution that will lead to stopping the war.
Weakening resistance
Netanyahu is betting that luring the resistance into negotiations may lead to the slackening of the Palestinian factions’ fighters, when they believe, even for a few days, that the war will end soon. Netanyahu believes here that the intensification of the resistance during negotiations is not an expression of ability, but rather a desperate attempt to improve the resistance’s conditions at the negotiating table, in line with the behavior followed in all wars.
Creating a rift within the resistance
Netanyahu is betting that negotiations could cause a split within the ranks of the resistance in Gaza, especially between its political and military wings. Politicians are negotiating under international pressure or subjective assessments that may make them more inclined to end the current round of conflict without the resistance losing its effective military structure, or being deprived of managing the Gaza Strip after the war, an issue that the fighters on the ground may not give the same weight to, or that they decide under different pressures than those to which politicians are exposed.
Perhaps the resistance’s awareness of this Israeli attempt is what made it more likely that Sinwar would assume the leadership of Hamas, so that the leadership, both political and military, would appear united in the face of Israel, which is what actually happened, as was shown by statements by Palestinian politicians and analysts closely following the war.
The resistance is aware of these six considerations and understands that Netanyahu cannot openly declare that he does not believe in any negotiations that lead to a solution. Rather, his only way to achieve his goals is through war. Otherwise, every time negotiations come close to achieving something – as officials in the United States themselves have announced – he would not have carried out a brutal attack on civilians in Gaza, which would embarrass the resistance and make it difficult for it to continue negotiating, because that could mean accepting the Israeli conditions or appearing to be conceding.
The Palestinian resistance, as well as the sponsors of the negotiations, and even Israel itself, are aware of the rule that says that negotiations are the natural end of wars, especially those whose results have not been decided on the battlefield.
But Netanyahu and his allies from the Israeli far-right continue to use negotiations as a “deceptive trap,” “facade,” or “game to buy time,” which poses many obstacles and impediments to this base, created by evil intentions.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera Network.
